0
   

America... Spying on Americans II

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2006 10:03 pm
coachryan wrote:
The simple fact is there is a legal way to eavesdrop on overseas communication, effectively shown by the recent busts in England. This administration simply considers itself above the law.


Can you explain what you mean by the above statement?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 07:20 am
Bye-Bye to Secret Spy Program?

Quote:
Why the fate of President Bush's eavesdropping program is dangling by a thread.

Republicans who limped back to Washington for a lame duck congressional session last week found a host of marching orders from President Bush, but perhaps none more urgent than this: Before Democrats take control of Congress in January, they must pass legislation authorizing the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program.

His plea for a legislative stamp of approval on the controversial spy effort is an "important priority in the war on terror," Bush said. The response: deafening silence. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist quickly dispatched aides to put out the word on Bush's request: Not gonna happen.

Outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter introduced yet another bill last week that he says would ease the concerns of privacy advocates while allowing the spying program to continue, but the odds of getting any last-ditch legislation through his committee, the House, and a Senate vote before Republicans cede control are formidable.


Hope springs eternal, yet I have my doubts.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 12:23 pm
Having doubt about what our government will do is healthy.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 07:31 am
I feel as though I setting myself for a big let down but this seems promising. On fox news no less.

Justice Department Launches Internal Probe of Role in NSA's Domestic Wiretap Program

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 06:11 pm
Success.

The first step to stopping the President's trampling of the Constitution re: 4th amendment rights is complete. Rejoice, all those who have waited for this day!

Quote:
Secret Court to Govern Wiretapping Plan
By LARA JAKES JORDAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department, easing a Bush administration policy, said Wednesday it has decided to give an independent body authority to monitor the government's controversial domestic spying program.

In a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said this authority has been given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and that it already has approved one request for monitoring the communications of a person believed to be linked to al-Qaida or an associated terror group.

The court orders approving collection of international communications - whether it originates in the United States or abroad - was issued Jan. 10, according to the two-page letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

"As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

"Accordingly, under these circumstances, the President has determined not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program when the current authorization expires," the attorney general wrote.

The Bush administration secretly launched the surveillance program in 2001 to monitor international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people suspected by the government of having terrorist links.


Tommorrow AG Gonzales will be appearing before Congress, in large part to talk about this program. It is no coincidence that the Bush admin released themselves from the program at the same time.

Step two, of course, is the investigation into how this travesty took place and how it was used. This will probably take up the bulk of this entire year, so don't hold your breath; there is a lot to this story and a lot of lies will need to be chopped through.

It is interesting to note that the Prez. and others made several claims over the years, including:

- that the terrorist surveillance program was essential to catching terrorists here in America

- that they didn't have to follow the law anyways b/c Bush could just choose to ignore the traditional interpretation of the Constitution's seperation of powers;

- that even talking about the program hurt the US.

These three are all now shown to be completely untrue. The Bush admin wouldn't have given up the program unless they felt there was a good chance that people are going to be in serious trouble because of it; they wouldn't be talking about the program if they honestly thought it hurt national security.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 06:16 pm
First, read the above post if you haven't already.

How mad are Conservatives, who have argued and backed Bush on this one for years, going to be that the program has just been 'given up without a fight?'

Let's ask one of it's staunchest defenders, Mark Levin:

Quote:
Wednesday, January 17, 2007

What Is the WHite House Thinking?

Is there no principle subject to negotiation? Is there no course subject to reversal? For the Bush administration to argue for years that this program, as operated, was critical to our national security and fell within the president's Constitutional authority, to then turnaround and surrender presidential authority this way is disgraceful. The administration is repudiating all the arguments it has made in testimony, legal briefs, and public statements. This goes to the heart of the White House's credibility. How can it cast away such a fundamental position of principle and law like this?


Let me answer the question for Mark: They never f*cking believed a word of the arguments they put forward in the first place. It was all a tool to allow them to keep spying, to keep breaking the law, for just as long as they thought they could get away with it. Now that the Dems are in charge, they don't think they are going to get away with it any longer, and are distancing themselves from it as fast as they can.

It will be fun to watch. I am willing to accept bets by those who would like to defend the government on this issue.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 06:29 pm
Cyclo, All you need to do is go back a few hundred posts to see who supported Bush's illegal wiretaps.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2007 06:35 pm
Oh, I remember who they are...

I just re-read one of revel's posts above:

Quote:

Republicans who limped back to Washington for a lame duck congressional session last week found a host of marching orders from President Bush, but perhaps none more urgent than this: Before Democrats take control of Congress in January, they must pass legislation authorizing the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program.

His plea for a legislative stamp of approval on the controversial spy effort is an "important priority in the war on terror," Bush said. The response: deafening silence. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist quickly dispatched aides to put out the word on Bush's request: Not gonna happen.


Interesting that Bush would put this as a 'top priority' over other matters. Almost as if they knew that without Congress legalizing the program retroactively, there would be big big trouble under the new Dem leadership.

Republicans are notoriously bad at defense... which should make for an interesting year!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 07:25 am
Snow is trying to spin this as saying that FISA has fixed what was wrong with FISA so it is ok for the spying program to be under the program is also typical considering that just a few weeks ago Bush was seeking congress legislation on it.

White House shifts course on spy program

Quote:
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the administration is satisfied with new rules adopted by the FISA court to address administration officials' concerns about national security. Snow could not explain why those concerns were not addressed before the program began.


I wonder if they are going to still do investigations into it now?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 08:06 am
From what I have heard about this so far, the program is not going to change a single bit. The only difference is that a judge has signed off on it and that somehow now makes it "legal" (not that it was "illegal" previously.

So, if the program is going to remain doing the same exact thing that it has been doing, how will that make you feel Cyc? Justified somehow?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 09:29 am
McGentrix wrote:
From what I have heard about this so far, the program is not going to change a single bit. The only difference is that a judge has signed off on it and that somehow now makes it "legal" (not that it was "illegal" previously.

So, if the program is going to remain doing the same exact thing that it has been doing, how will that make you feel Cyc? Justified somehow?


Well, the situation has changed. Read:

Quote:


"As a result of these orders, any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," Gonzales wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.


You're right in that the law didn't change. The executive branch has always been required to put their foreign intelligence surveillance before a judge. They just haven't been doing it.

Now, they will be doing it. This is exactly what I and others like myself have been complaining about: the lack of a judge involved.

Involve a judge, no more warrantless wiretapping. No judge signed off on anything making it legal. All that happened is the Bush crew decided to grant a power to the courts which it already had!

The gall... like I said above, they would never have done this if they didn't think people were going to be in trouble during the investigation; and it starts today.

Good times

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 10:14 am
McGentrix wrote:
From what I have heard about this so far, the program is not going to change a single bit. The only difference is that a judge has signed off on it and that somehow now makes it "legal" (not that it was "illegal" previously.

So, if the program is going to remain doing the same exact thing that it has been doing, how will that make you feel Cyc? Justified somehow?


Quote:
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales notifies Senators Patrick Leahy (Dem. - Vt.), Arlen Specter (Rep. - Pa.), and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is overseeing domestic electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping efforts by the Dept. of Justice to monitor alleged terrorist communications.


FindLaw

Read the memo from Gonzales on findlaw and you will see that now the program will be conducted subject to approval from FISA. It is a big change, McGentrix.

I know Clyop already answered, but it bears repeating.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 10:17 am
Of course, the wording has been left deliberately vague, which leaves open the possibility that other programs are going on besides the one in question, without warrants as well; we'll have to see if we can't get to the bottom of it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 10:19 am
Sorry for mispelling your name, can't go back and change it, Cycloptichorn.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 10:32 am
I mis-spell it about 1/10th of the time myself, so there's no worries!

Cheers
Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 12:20 pm
McGentrix wrote:
From what I have heard about this so far, the program is not going to change a single bit. The only difference is that a judge has signed off on it and that somehow now makes it "legal" (not that it was "illegal" previously.

So, if the program is going to remain doing the same exact thing that it has been doing, how will that make you feel Cyc? Justified somehow?


But McG, that's what the complaint was all along, that they weren't using the FISA court which was required by law. Therefore there was no other branch of government to exercise oversight of the program. Nobody was asking them to no longer listen in on phone calls from overseas of suspected terrorists, but that they needed to do it legally. And here, it seems, they are saying they will do it legally now.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 12:47 pm
The thing is though, the program will continue as it has been. There will be zero change in what the government monitors and how they monitor it. The only difference will be that a piece of paper bears a different signature.

Is that really what all the fuss was about? Really?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 12:47 pm
This is what happens when congress fails to reign in the president; abuse of power.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 12:50 pm
McGentrix wrote:
The thing is though, the program will continue as it has been. There will be zero change in what the government monitors and how they monitor it. The only difference will be that a piece of paper bears a different signature.

Is that really what all the fuss was about? Really?


This is actually not true.

Before, there was no judge involved with determining whether or not intelligence was being gathered in a correct fashion or not; now, there is a judge involved. This means that the person 'signing the paper' has an opinion outside the executive branch, which is important when the Executive branch is full of a bunch of lying, corrupt bastards.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2007 12:56 pm
FISA established a special court, composed of seven federal district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice for staggered terms and are from different circuits.

Wasn't the Chief Justice Bush appointed? What makes you think that the judicial branch is anymore trustworthy? No one is allowed to see the records and files, so how can anyone be sure that it is anything more then a rubber stamp?

But, whatever. So long as the program continues.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 11:18:43